What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

If morality is determined by the dictates of an authority it is not objective, it is arbitrary.

Not at all.

It would only be arbitrary if the One who defines morality is not capable of doing so, isn't correct, and is not authoritative. The Supreme Being would be uniquely qualified, as a matter of fact.

If moral principles were objective, God would have to abide by those objective moral principles.

False dichotomy. The old Euthyphro Dilemma, which has been asked and answered up the strand.

[Immanuel Can]

That may be your assumption, it is certainly not mine. It is obvious to me you can reason, it is equally obvious to me that you use that ability not to discover the truth but to rationalize your beliefs.

That's the point. "Reason" can serve many agendas. It has no agenda of its own, and presses no singular conclusions on anyone. Everything depends on a person's fundamental ontological beliefs.

But of course, that's not so. They're reasoning, alright; but they're reasoning from different premises than you are.

Nobody believes that. They all believe that they ARE reasoning. They're just reasoning from different premises, again.

Of course those who choose not to reason correctly...

We're not talking about people who don't reason correctly. We're speaking of people who DO reason correctly, but reason from different assumptions.

Again, the problem of premises arises.

Let's consider the 9-11 terrorists. ...

Well that is an interesting way to evade the issue.

It was no evasion. It was an illustration of the truth of what I said. And I notice that you had no refutation of it. You know very well those men had "reasons." They just weren't reasons you and I would accept, because they proceeded from their particular religious assumptions, not from anything you or I believes.

Reason didn't save anyone on November 11th. In fact, reasoning individuals killed them.

It wasn't reason,

Is it your position that they were all simply madmen? Amazing that they were able to do all that they did, and all of them were incapable of reason.

Neither of us believes that. There was nothing wrong with their cognitive processes per se. Their objectives were very carefully reasoned out. Anyone can see that. The problem was their premises.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I am not arguing for the existence of an ontological objective moral law on slavery.

What I have is an objective moral law on "slavery is wrong" based on empirical evidence and intersubjective consensus of human beings.

It hardly seems worth bothering - because several people have repeatedly pointed out your mistake and you just don't get it - but here's another go.

1 What people say they want may be, but need not be, an expression of 'human nature'. But let's say it is. Let's say no sane human wants to be a chattel slave because it's contrary to human nature. Let's call that a fact of human nature: slavery is contrary to human nature.

2 Now, your task is not to show with 'empirical evidences and its possibilities' [sic] that slavery is contrary to human nature. For the sake of this argument, that is completely granted and accepted as true: it's a fact that slavery is contrary to human nature.

3 Instead, your task is to justify this claim: 'Because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong.' Now, what reason do you have to make that claim? What evidence do you have to show that it's true? Why is it true that, because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong? What fact (feature of reality) makes that claim true, regardless of what anyone thinks?

Note, please resist the urge to protest that slavery is contrary to human nature. See point 2 above. And please resist the urge to protest that the UN is opposed to slavery; obviously slavery isn't morally wrong because the UN thinks it is.

Anticipating failure and probable incomprehension - offers accepted from any other moral objectivists here.

To save time I will borrow from Skepdick's point which I agree.

Note Skepdick's point;

The reason why moral objectivists can't establish the objectivity of morality is very simple, and should be easy to grasp. Here's the basic claim.

'[X] is morally right / wrong because...' {Insert the thing or action of choice.] Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y - the next question is: 'Why is Y morally right / wrong?' If the reply is 'Y is morally right / wrong because...', whatever follows the 'because' - call it Z - the next question is ... and so on and so on. At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement.

You can play the exact same (losing) game with any claim which you purport to have a truth-value.

Why is the sky blue? The sky is blue because... Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y. Why is Y true? Y is true because Q. Why is Q true? the next question is ... and so on and so on.
Why is Earth oblate? The Earth is oblate because... Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Z. Why is Z true? Z is true because X. Why is X true? the next question is ... and so on and so on.

Because.... At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement.. If that were not the case you are perpetually asking "Why is _ true?"

So, if subjective judgment is a sufficient condition for factual objectivism, then it's also sufficient for moral objectivism. Your only counter-argument against moral objectivism is an epistemic double standard.

You don't want morality to be objective. But it is.

The reservation is what is objective moral laws to me are not from a God but inferred with the highest reason from empirical evidences.

3 Instead, your task is to justify this claim: 'Because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong.' Now, what reason do you have to make that claim? What evidence do you have to show that it's true? Why is it true that, because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong? What fact (feature of reality) makes that claim true, regardless of what anyone thinks?

I have already stated the evidences is from all the literature involving 'chattel' slavery from human history up to the present.
There are no written evidence that record no sane human want to be enslaved by another human. What is reported on chattel slavery from history to the present is the sufferings endured by the slaves and that they seek freedom.

Note the logic and reason is this;
The claim 'slavery is morally wrong' as objectively proven with empirical evidence.
If you do not agree with the above, then your claim would be;
'Slavery is morally right'
In addition, you have not provided evidence with your vice-versa claim.

The principle with morality is whatever is morally right, it has to be made universal to all human beings, i.e. 'slavery is morally right' in this case.
If 'slavery is morally right' for all human beings, then everyone can theoretically be a slave to another.
In this case, there will be sufferings all over an no freedom for anyone.
Logically such [slavery is morally right] cannot be what should be advocated for humanity.

On the other hand, I have justified with empirical evidence with sound reasoning why slavery is morally wrong.
When this is made universal, in theory [at least] no human will be a slave to another human, thus there will be no sufferings related to slavery and everyone will have freedom in relation to slavery.

Thus it is obvious by reason my claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is a more tenable and acceptable than your vice-versa 'slavery is morally right' allowance.

Note this very important point;
I stated what I am claiming is NOT an ONTOLOGICAL objective moral law, i.e. from a God.

Hope you can differentiate

• 1. an ONTOLOGICAL objective moral law from God or otherwise, enforced with a threat of hell;
  from,
  2. my evidence-based and soundly reasoned objective moral law to be used as a Guide only.

[Peter Holmes]

At bottom, 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, given the way we use those signs, because the earth actually is an oblate spheroid. And that's what makes this an objective matter - independent from opinion.

But at bottom, 'slavery is morally wrong' has no truth-condition. We can't point to the wrongness of slavery in the way that we can point to the shape of the earth in order to settle the matter. And that's what makes it subjective - a matter of opinion.

Moral realists and objectivists can blather as much as they like, but this is the way it is. Frustrating, I know.

[Skepdick]

At bottom, 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, given the way we use those signs, because the earth actually is an oblate spheroid. And that's what makes this an objective matter - independent from opinion.

But...

At the bottom, 'murder is wrong' is true, given the way we use those signs, because murder is actually wrong. And that's what makes this an objective matter - independent from opinion.

There is not "but".

[Peter Holmes]

Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And that applies to both factual and non-factual assertions.

So thinking the earth is an oblate spheroid or not doesn't make it an oblate spheroid or not. There's a fact of the matter.

And thinking a painting is ugly or beautiful doesn't make it ugly or beautiful. It's a matter of opinion. What sort of aesthetic fascist would want to insist that one opinion is the correct one? Oh yes - all the style-fashion-taste thought-police there have ever been do that.

And thinking slavery is wrong or not wrong doesn't make it wrong or not wrong. It's a matter of opinion. What sort of moral fascist would want to insist that one opinion is the correct one? Oh yes - all the fascists there have ever been do that - religious and secular.

[Skepdick]

Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And that applies to both factual and non-factual assertions.

Agreed.

So thinking the earth is an oblate spheroid or not doesn't make it an oblate spheroid or not. There's a fact of the matter.

So thinking murder is wrong or not doesn't make it wrong or not. There's a fact of the matter.

The fact-opinion distinction is epistemically meaningless. If I can assert the oblateness of Earth; or the blueness of the sky from first principles, I can also assert the wrongness of murder from first principles.

Either logic allows for adjectives or it doesn't. Choose one.

[Peter Holmes]

If it's true that the fact-opinion distinction is epistemically meaningless, then the claim that the fact-opinion distinction is epistemically meaningless is false. Which, of course, it is.

If it's a fact that slavery is wrong, then there are facts which are distinct from opinions. Which, of course, there are.

If facts are opinions, then it's merely an opinion that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Which, of course, is bollocks.

A fascist has to insist that his moral opinions are facts, in order to justify oppression. That's why moral objectivism is an evil that has to be fought at each and every turn.

[Skepdick]

If it's true that the fact-opinion distinction is epistemically meaningless, then the claim that the fact-opinion distinction is epistemically meaningless is false.

I don't even need to counter this. Your argument imploded on itself.

'[X] is true / false because...' {Insert the thing or action of choice.] Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y - the next question is: 'Why is Y true / false?' If the reply is 'Y is true / false because...', whatever follows the 'because' - call it Z - the next question is ... and so on and so on.

A fascist has to insist that his moral opinions are facts, in order to justify oppression. That's why moral objectivism is an evil that has to be fought at each and every turn.

You got that exactly backwards. A fascist has to insist that morality is subjective. That's the only way a fascist can convince others that the wrongness of murder, slavery and oppression are "just" matters of opinion.

Murder is objectively wrong. Even if your subjective moral opinion is that murder is right - you are still objectively wrong.
Slavery is objectively wrong. Even If your subjective moral opinion is that slavery is right - you are still objectively wrong.
Oppression is objectively wrong. Even If your subjective moral opinion is that oppression is right - you are still objectively wrong.

If that's "fascism" - I'll take it any day over what you seem to be preaching.

If that is the kind of "evil that has to be fought at each and every turn" then you've simply mistaken the enemy for somebody other than yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

A fascist has to insist that his moral opinions are facts, in order to justify oppression. That's why moral objectivism is an evil that has to be fought at each and every turn.

That's reasonable.

But it misses the error on the other side, which is just as bad. For another way of justifying oppression is to call things which are facts mere "opinions." For the propagandist, both methods work equally well.

[RCSaunders]

That may be your assumption, it is certainly not mine. It is obvious to me you can reason, it is equally obvious to me that you use that ability not to discover the truth but to rationalize your beliefs.

That's the point. "Reason" can serve many agendas. It has no agenda of its own, and presses no singular conclusions on anyone. Everything depends on a person's fundamental ontological beliefs.

I'll assume it's a mistake. You are mistaking "reason," with the, "ability to reason." It's like confusing the ability to put things in one's mouth and swallowing them with, "nourishment," whether one is consuming a meal or taking poison.

To help you through your confusion: from now on, I'll say, "correct reason," to refer to the correct use of the rational faculty, and assume when you say, "reason," you mean the use of the rational faculty to, "rationalize," just anything that goes on in one's consciousness.

But of course, that's not so. They're reasoning, alright; but they're reasoning from different premises than you are.

No they are not, "reasoning, alright," they are reasoning all wrong. Starting with an incorrect premise is wrong, such as, "there is knowledge that does not need to be learned," or, "there are things which exist for which there is no observable evidence other than what someone else has said."

Nobody believes that. They all believe that they ARE reasoning. They're just reasoning from different premises, again.

There was a time when I believed it was possible for people to simply be mistaken in their use of reason, but the more experience I have with those who believe absurd things, the more I'm convinced, they all know, deep down, they are evading the truth. They know the premises they have accepted are only so they can maintain beliefs that honestly examined could not be rationally sustained.

Of course those who choose not to reason correctly...

We're not talking about people who don't reason correctly. We're speaking of people who DO reason correctly, but reason from different assumptions.

Only you call reasoning from wrong premises correct reason. It's the basis of all your arguments, and it's wrong.

Reason didn't save anyone on November 11th. In fact, reasoning individuals killed them.

It wasn't reason,

Is it your position that they were all simply madmen? Amazing that they were able to do all that they did, and all of them were incapable of reason

You know, IC, though I do not personally care what anyone chooses to believe, I do understand why some people hold a kind of animus toward Christians. It is because they so often use these kinds of rationalizations.

If I thought you really did not know any better than to confuse using the ability to reason incorrectly with being incapable of reason, I could believe it was simply a mistake. But I'm convinced you do know the difference, that you do know it was not correct reason behind the behavior of the terrorists, but very rigorous incorrect reason. I'm sorry, but these kinds of arguments seem to most others as intentional obfuscation.

Neither of us believes that. There was nothing wrong with their cognitive processes per se. Their objectives were very carefully reasoned out. Anyone can see that. The problem was their premises.

That's exactly right. But a, "premise," is not something that, "happens to," someone. What one will accept and hold as a premise must be chosen, just as everything else one thinks must be chosen. If one chooses their premises on the basis of whims, feelings, what they've been taught, vague impressions, or an idea they, "just have," without knowing where those ideas came form, their premises are not based on correct reason and are irrational.

To reason correctly one must examine their premises, as well as all their conclusions to insure there are no contradictions. If one's premises are not based on clear evidence or non-contradictory reasoning from whatever evidence one has, their premises are not based on correct reason and are irrational.

[RCSaunders]

If morality is determined by the dictates of an authority it is not objective, it is arbitrary.

Not at all.

It would only be arbitrary if the One who defines morality is not capable of doing so, isn't correct, and is not authoritative. The Supreme Being would be uniquely qualified, as a matter of fact.

What is a "Supreme Being?"

If moral principles were objective, God would have to abide by those objective moral principles.

False dichotomy. The old Euthyphro Dilemma, which has been asked and answered up the strand.

It is only a dilemma for those who believe in a gods, like Socrates, Leibnitz, and you. Since you believe in God, here is the solution to the so-called dilemma:

"The right of nature whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his laws, is to be derived, not from his creating them (as if he required obedience, as of gratitude for his benefits), but from his irresistible power." [Thomas Hobbes] In other words, might makes right.

Now that is patently evil!

[Skepdick]

"The right of nature whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his laws, is to be derived, not from his creating them (as if he required obedience, as of gratitude for his benefits), but from his irresistible power." [Thomas Hobbes] In other words, might makes right.

Now that is patently evil!

The manifestation of the "law-enforcer", the "might which makes right" is in the form of power one way or another.

Be that power in the hands of individuals, collective justice (perhaps more aptly: legal) systems, or God himself. Either way - might makes right.

"Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall. And a very small man can cast a very large shadow" --George R.R. Martin.

"The only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing" --Whoever.

[Peter Holmes]

So - no sign of any justification for the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - moral features of reality. Just a repetition of the claim, as though saying something is so makes it so.

And the fascism implicit in the claim - there are moral facts, and, of course, I know what they are - shows its ugliness. Moral objectivism is moral fascism with a civilised veneer. When inquisitors tighten the rack, or homosexuals are thrown off tall buildings, or planes are flown into them, or women are forced to continue unwanted pregnancies to term - the nasty truth is out. Such crimes are unlikely to be committed by moral subjectivists. It's the swivel-eyed nutters convinced of the truth of their moral opinions who are comfortable with persecuting and murdering others.

[RCSaunders]

..., your task is to justify this claim: 'Because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong.' Now, what reason do you have to make that claim? What evidence do you have to show that it's true? Why is it true that, because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong? What fact (feature of reality) makes that claim true, regardless of what anyone thinks?

If you think the reason for moral values concerns one's relationships to others, you are correct that there can be no objective moral principle. No matter how much our neighbor might dislike something, that does not mean it is morally wrong for us to do it.

But IC is wrong too: "There's no grounds for "morality" as referring to anything else but a total illusion, a social fiction with no objective backing at all ...."

In fact, you are both wrong because you have assumed that objective moral principles are determined socially, that is, whatever is good for society or others. Now if that is what you mean by objective moral values, there are none.

But what is the purpose of moral principles, and why do human beings need them? Isn't it because we are volitional beings, required to live our lives by conscious choice? Don't we need to discover which kinds of behavior will lead to our survival and successful life verses behavior that will lead to our death and destruction?

Now, if moral principles are required by individual human beings so they can live their own lives successfully, there are definitely objective moral principles. Human beings have a specific nature (that's the ontology for IC, the is) which determines how they must live (the ought) if they are to live and enjoy their lives (rather than to suffer and die).